G.R. No.

123169 November 4, 1996

PARAS VS COMELEC
 
FACTS: Petitioner Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong Barangay of Pula,
Cabanatuan City who won during the last regular barangay election in 1994. A
petition for his recall as Punong Barangay was filed by the registered voters of the
barangay. Acting on the petition for recall, public respondent Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) resolved to approve the petition, scheduled the petition signing
on October 14, 1995, and set the recall election on November 13, 1995. At least
29.30% of the registered voters signed the petition, well above the 25% requirement
provided by law. The COMELEC, however, deferred the recall election in view of
petitioner's opposition. On December 6, 1995, the COMELEC set anew the recall
election, this time on December 16, 1995. To prevent the holding of the recall
election, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City a petition
for injunction with the trial court issuing a temporary restraining order. After
conducting a summary hearing, the trial court lifted the restraining order, dismissed
the petition and required petitioner and his counsel to explain why they should not
be cited for contempt for misrepresenting that the barangay recall election was
without COMELEC approval.

The COMELEC, for the third time, re-scheduled the recall election on January 13,
1996; hence, the instant petition for certiorari with urgent prayer for injunction. On
January 12, 1996, the Court issued a temporary restraining order and required the
Office of the Solicitor General, in behalf of public respondent, to comment on the
petition. In view of the Office of the Solicitor General's manifestation maintaining an
opinion adverse to that of the COMELEC, the latter through its law department filed
the required comment. Petitioner thereafter filed a reply.

Petitioner's argument: Citing Section 74 (b) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code, which states that " no recall shall take place
within one (1) year from the date of the official's assumption to office or one (1) year
immediately preceding a regular local election ", petitioner insists that the scheduled
January 13, 1996 recall election is now barred as the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)
election was set by Republic Act No. 7808 on the first Monday of May 1996, and
every three years thereafter. In support thereof, petitioner cites Associated Labor
Union v. Letrondo-Montejo, 237 SCRA 621, where the Court considered the SK
election as a regular local election. Petitioner maintains that as the SK election is a
regular local election, hence no recall election can be had for barely four months
separate the SK election from the recall election.

ISSUE: WON the SK Election should be considered a regular local election - NO

RULING: NO. The Court does not agree with petitioner’s argument.

The subject provision of the Local Government Code provides:

Sec. 74. Limitations on Recall. — (a) Any elective local official may be the subject of
a recall election only once during his term of office for loss of confidence.
(b) No recall shall take place within one (1) year from the date of the official's
assumption to office or one (1) year immediately preceding a regular local election.

It is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be

interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be
considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent
of the whole enactment. The evident intent of Section 74 is to subject an elective
local official to recall election once during his term of office. Paragraph (b) construed
together with paragraph (a) merely designates the period when such elective local
official may be subject of a recall election, that is, during the second year of his term
of office. Thus, subscribing to petitioner's interpretation of the phrase regular local
election to include the SK election will unduly circumscribe the novel provision of
the Local Government Code on recall, a mode of removal of public officers by
initiation of the people before the end of his term. And if the SK election which is set
by R.A No. 7808 to be held every three years from May 1996 were to be deemed
within the purview of the phrase "regular local election", as erroneously insisted by
petitioner, then no recall election can be conducted rendering inutile the recall
provision of the Local Government Code.

In the interpretation of a statute, the Court should start with the assumption that the
legislature intended to enact an effective law, and the legislature is not presumed to
have done a vain thing in the enactment of a statute. An interpretation should, if
possible, be avoided under which a statute or provision being construed is defeated,
or as otherwise expressed, nullified, destroyed, emasculated, repealed, explained
away, or rendered insignificant, meaningless, inoperative or nugatory.

It is likewise a basic precept in statutory construction that a statute should be

interpreted in harmony with the Constitution. Thus, the interpretation of Section 74
of the Local Government Code, specifically paragraph (b) thereof, should not be in
conflict with the Constitutional mandate of Section 3 of Article X of the Constitution
to "enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure instituted through a system of
decentralization with effective mechanism of recall, initiative, and referendum . . . .”
The spirit, rather than the letter of a law determines its construction; hence, a
statute, as in this case, must be read according to its spirit and intent.

Finally, recall election is potentially disruptive of the normal working of the local
government unit necessitating additional expenses, hence the prohibition against
the conduct of recall election one year immediately preceding the regular local
election. The proscription is due to the proximity of the next regular election for the
office of the local elective official concerned. The electorate could choose the
official's replacement in the said election who certainly has a longer tenure in office
than a successor elected through a recall election. It would, therefore, be more in
keeping with the intent of the recall provision of the Code to construe regular local
election as one referring to an election where the office held by the local elective
official sought to be recalled will be contested and be filled by the electorate.
Nevertheless, recall at this time is no longer possible because of the limitation
stated under Section 74 (b) of the Code considering that the next regular election
involving the barangay office concerned is barely seven (7) months away, the same
having been scheduled on May 1997.

DISPOSITION: ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby dismissed for having become

moot and academic. The temporary restraining order issued by the Court on January
12, 1996, enjoining the recall election should be as it is hereby made permanent. 
 
Separate Opinions
 
DAVIDE, JR., J., concurring:
I concur with Mr. Justice Ricardo J. Francisco in his ponencia.
However, I wish to add another reason as to why the SK election cannot be
considered a "regular local election" for purposes of recall under Section 74 of the
Local Government Code of 1991.
The term "regular local election" must be confined to the regular election of elective
local officials, as distinguished from the regular election of national officials. The
elective national officials are the President, Vice-President, Senators and
Congressmen. The elective local officials are Provincial Governors, Vice-Governors
of provinces, Mayors and Vice-Mayors of cities and municipalities, Members of the
Sanggunians of provinces, cities and municipalities, punong barangays and members
of the sangguniang barangays, and the elective regional officials of the Autonomous
Region of Muslim Mindanao. These are the only local elective officials deemed
recognized by Section 2(2) of Article IX-C of the Constitution, which provides:

Sec. 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and
functions:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and
appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided
by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or involving elective barangay officials decided
by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.
A regular election, whether national or local, can only refer to an election
participated in by those who possess the right of suffrage, are not otherwise
disqualified by law, and who are registered voters. One of the requirements for the
exercise of suffrage under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution is that the person
must be at least 18 years of age, and one requisite before he can vote is that he be a
registered voter pursuant to the rules on registration prescribed in the Omnibus
Election Code (Section 113-118).

Under the law, the SK includes the youth with ages ranging from 15 to 21 (Sec. 424,
Local Government Code of 1991). Accordingly, they include many who are not
qualified to vote in a regular election, viz., those from ages 15 to less than 18. In no
manner then may SK elections be considered a regular election (whether national or
local).
Indeed the Sangguniang Kabataan is nothing more than a youth organization, and
although fully recognized in the Local Government Code and vested with certain
powers and functions, its elective officials have not attained the status of local
elective officials. So, in Mercado vs. Board of Election Supervisors (243 SCRA 422
[1995]), this Court ruled that although the SK Chairman is an ex-officio member of
the sangguniang barangay — an elective body — that fact does not make him "an
elective barangay official," since the law specifically provides who comprise the
elective officials of the sangguniang barangay, viz., the punong barangay and the
seven (7) regular sangguniang barangay members elected at large by those qualified
to exercise the right of suffrage under Article V of the Constitution, who are likewise
registered voters of the barangay. This shows further that the SK election is not a
regular local election for purposes of recall under Section 74 of the Local
Government Code.
 
NOTES: A recall election (also called a recall referendum or representative recall) is
a procedure by which, in certain polities, voters can remove an elected official from
office through a direct vote before that official's term has ended.